James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition will be supporting this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 2) Bill 2022. This bill implements a number of sensible measures of the previous coalition government. For a number of these measures their implementation was delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This bill provides effective changes to support small businesses in handling their affairs with the Australian Taxation Office, providing them with additional supports in the event of inadvertent breaches, as opposed to financial penalties. It provides small businesses additional support in dealing with the ATO appeals process and removes tax barriers to support sole traders and individuals looking to upskill. It supports gig economy contractors and companies to manage their tax obligations and ensures that the ATO has the data it needs to ensure accurate reporting. And it puts in place important reforms to support the coalition's election commitment to support Australians over 55 to downsize their properties and contribute to their super. This bill builds on the coalition's strong record of supporting small business, retirees and sensible reforms to super, as well as supporting the housing market.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we're seeing in Australia at the moment is a redefinition of class. It used to be that, if you worked hard, if you studied hard, if you spent your pennies wisely, you could actually set yourself up for a good life. But that guarantee no longer exists in Australia. The egalitarian social contract upon which we once prided ourselves as a country has been torn up. Nowadays, the thing that is most likely to determine your financial success throughout the course of your life is the extent to which you or your family own land. We've gone from being a nation of a fair go to being a country that resembles a new feudal order. This is no accident. This is the direct result of 30-odd years of economic policy that, instead of treating housing as a human right that everyone should have access to at an affordable rate, has instead treated housing as a financial asset designed to enrich those who own the most of it and designed to enrich the banks, whose business model is predicated on land price inflation. Through tax policy, through monetary policy and through prudential regulation, the Australian economy is designed to enrich landholders and to enrich the moneylenders. By that design, we have torn up the social contract that our country used to be based on, which is in part an understanding that, if you did work hard, study hard and spend your pennies wisely, you could set up yourself and your family for a dignified life.

That takes me to schedule 5 of this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 2) Bill 2022, which reduces the eligibility age from 60 to 55 for people to make so-called downsizer contributions to their superannuation. I say the 'so-called' downsizer contributions because this policy is actually just one of the latest and increasingly more byzantine ways in which tax law is being rigged to favour those whose landholdings are worth the most. The Australian Financial Review very helpfully set out just what a rort this scheme is at the point that it was introduced by the then Treasurer, Mr Morrison, I might add, in 2018 and when the eligibility age was actually 65. The following is from an article instructively entitled 'How to put more into super when you're not really downsizing'. The article states:

These contributions, known as "downsizer contributions", present an opportunity to top up your super even if you're otherwise unable to contribute … due to your age, work status or the amount you've got in super.

But don't let the name fool you.

To make a downsizer contribution you could be selling your home to buy a bigger one—if in fact you buy another place at all. You could be moving into your investment property, holiday home or even into aged care. You don't even have to sell the place you're living in—you could be selling another property that was once the family home.

To make a downsizer contribution you don't have to even buy another place.

So there you have it: don't let the name fool you. Despite all the rubbish flowing about around reducing the barriers to downsizing, more effective use of the housing stock, freeing up larger homes for families, this policy is nothing more than an opportunity for those with the most expensive homes and those with the most excess wealth to load up their superannuation accounts so they can get even more public subsidies in the form of superannuation tax concessions for their estate planning. That's because, to quote again from the AFR:

While the downsizer contribution has broad application, people likely to benefit most will be self-funded retirees who have a level of income and assets that precludes them receiving any means-tested social security …

There you have it, plain and simple. What we are debating now, brought in by a so-called Labor government, is a public subsidy for the wealthy.

It's exactly the sort policy we'd expect from Mr Morrison and a Tory government. And do you know what? That's actually exactly what it is: Mr Morrison's Tory policy brought forward by the Australian Labor Party, the so-called great friend of the working and less-well off in our society. The Labor Party who will not increase the rate of Newstart but who are quite happy indeed to bring in a massive public subsidy for the already very wealthy. This was Tory policy when Mr Morrison introduced it as Treasurer in 2018 and it was Tory policy when the eligibility age was reduced from 65 to 60 while Mr Morrison was Prime Minister. And it's Tory policy today, which is why, when the Australian Greens introduce an amendment in the committee stages to strike out this part of the bill, it will be voted down by—that's right, you guessed it!—the political duopoly in this country: the Coles and Woolworths of Australian politics. They will vote together to ensure that the rich get yet another public handout in Australia while the poor continue to struggle and starve because neither major party in the duopoly support a rise in the rate of Newstart.

This policy to provide yet more superannuation tax concessions for the rich, when the superannuation system already provides more public subsidies to the rich than it does to anybody else, is an absolute obscenity. And do you know what? It was announced by the former Prime Minister, Mr Morrison at the coalition's election campaign launch earlier this year. So here we are debating a centrepiece of Mr Morrison's bid for re-election—a key pitch by the leader of what the new Prime Minister quite rightly described as a 'rotten government', and it's being introduced by the Australian Labor Party. This is absolutely Alice in Wonderland stuff! The party of the workers comes in here with massive public subsidies for the extremely wealthy. How good, to quote Mr Morrison, is the Australian Labor Party? What did the self-styled Tory fighter, Mr Albanese, do when Mr Morrison announced this very policy as one of his landmark campaign policies in the election? He ate it up, didn't he? That's what Mr Albanese did, he ate it up. He ate it up really fast, because he didn't want to get wedged. How good is the Australian Labor Party?

We all know that Labor would never have come up with this policy on their own. But they are such a gutless shadow of their former selves that Tory policy is now Labor policy. Here they are in schedule 5 of this bill with yet another handout of public funds to the super wealthy and the very well off in this country, actually legislating Tory policy. Once again, like the stage 3 tax cuts, this is Mr Albanese adopting Mr Morrison's legacy.

I say to the Australian Labor Party: you need to find yourselves again. You need to have a good look in the mirror and find out exactly what your values are.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

By winning elections!

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll take that interjection from Senator Gallagher, because that shows it was all about winning the election and nothing at all about good public policy. I say to the Australian Labor Party: you need to have a good look in the mirror and try and return to the values that led to your establishment all those decades ago. You've got to face that you're no longer the party of the working people first and foremost; you're now joining the Tories as a party of the landowners first and foremost. I encourage progressively minded people to understand this.

When progressively minded people hear the Albanese government say that they won't get rid of negative gearing or the capital gains tax concessions, that they can't afford to build the amount of social housing we actually need, that they're going to proceed with the stage 3 tax cuts for the super wealthy, that they won't introduce a rent freeze, that they're going to proceed with the provisions in this bill for yet another public superannuation subsidy for those at the top end of town, what people are hearing is the Australian Labor Party confirming that they represent the interests of the landowning class over and above the interests of working Australians. That's what the Labor Party is saying, and that's what people should hear when they hear the Labor Party talk about those things and when they see the Labor Party introduce legislation such as this.

I give notice of my intention to move the amendment on sheet 1632, circulated in my name, which would strike out schedule 5 from this bill. I commend that amendment to the chamber but I hold out no hope it will succeed, because the duopoly in this place is going to once again work together, to collude, to ensure that the interests of the landed class in this country have primacy and that the interests of those who are less well-off are once again ignored.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I deal with the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 2) Bill 2022, I want to respond to some of Senator McKim's—I'm not quite sure what the right word is.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pointed!

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not sure 'pointed' is the right word! Of all weeks to claim there is a duopoly, of all weeks to say there's a Coles and Woolworths of Australian politics! This is a week that's going to demonstrate a couple of things: firstly, that there is a very big difference between what we stand for in government and what the former government did and stood for, to the extent you could say they stood for anything apart from their own interests; and, secondly, that there's quite a bit of a gulf between us. We are going to deliver this week what we said we were going to deliver, and this bill is part of that agenda—a national integrity commission, and industrial relations reform. Last week it was child care. The problem with this silly hyperbolic rhetoric is: in order for political rhetoric to be effective, it has to have some relationship with the truth.

I listened to Senator McKim's account of the terrible things that this bill was going to do, and I thought: 'I'd better check for myself. This doesn't sound very good.' It turns out downsizing is not a bad thing; we should have more of it. People who live in big homes—and there are only a few of them—should give them away, and people with big families should move into big homes and people with little families should move into little homes, and there should be a little bit of support from government for that. I had a look at the budget impact—not very much. You can claim to be opposed to extreme rhetoric on the other side of politics, and all the engagement with the characters who inhabit that end, but you've actually got to be a little bit measured when it comes to what you say yourself. Schedule 5 is very clear. Downsizing is good; the budget impact is tiny. In this week, of all weeks, you try and claim these things—I think this week should have a trigger warning for Liberal politicians. We had the Victorian election last Saturday. I can't wait for next Saturday, but last Saturday—

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hubris!

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hubris? I don't even know what that means. I didn't do Greek at Glen Innes High School—I was flat out passing English! We had a week that began with the sorts of creatures who inhabit the Victorian component of the Liberal-National party out here cohabiting with these extremists and loons on the far right of Victorian politics—vaccine denialists and conspiracy theorists. And we had senior former and current Liberal politicians saying, 'What about Dan Andrews's stairs?', hanging out with utter extremists and enabling violence at polling booths. They thought they might surf through to a victory and got comprehensively flogged last Saturday.

You would think that there'd be a moment of self-reflection, but we're seeing the same stunts from over here. We're about to see another one from Senator Bragg this afternoon, in the greatest game of inside baseball you'd ever see, with his matter of public importance. I'm looking forward to that discussion. Then you have hyperbolic claims from this lot. On this side we will do sensible reform. We'll do it carefully. We'll do it methodically. We'll do what we said we were going to do and we'll do it in a straightforward, sensible order. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to thank senators who have contributed to this debate today. Schedule 1 of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 2) Bill 2022 makes it easier for businesses to understand their record-keeping obligations. If a business is genuinely struggling to keep appropriate tax records, the Commissioner of Taxation will be allowed to offer them a choice to undertake a record-keeping course rather than paying financial penalties. The commissioner cannot offer this course to businesses that are disengaged with the tax system or deliberately avoiding their obligations.

Schedule 2 of the bill extends existing third-party reporting requirements to operators of electronic platforms in the sharing economy. Platform operators will be required to report information regarding certain transactions and payment details to the ATO. This information will assist the ATO in its administration of the tax system and ensure sellers on these platforms are meeting their tax obligations.

Schedule 3 of the bill reduces compliance costs for individuals claiming self-education deductions by removing the exclusion of the first $250 of deductions for prescribed courses of education.

Schedule 4 of the bill allows small businesses to seek orders from the AAT that stay or otherwise affect ATO debt-recovery actions while the small business is disputing the underlying tax assessment in the small-business tax division of the AAT. Applying to the AAT instead of the courts will save small businesses money in court and legal fees and as much as 60 days of waiting for a decision. These orders will be subjected to integrity checks intended to prevent aggressive taxpayers without genuine disputes from receiving stay orders sought with the intention of frustrating the recovery of genuine tax debts.

Schedule 5 of the bill expands eligibility for those aged 55 years and over to make downsizer contributions into superannuation. This will allow more Australians to consider downsizing to a home that better suits their needs, thereby increasing the availability of suitable housing for Australian families. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Bill read a second time.